- This topic is empty.
Really Bad Moon Shot
-
The other day I saw a great moon shot and thought I’d try last night.
What have I done to get it so wrong? :( :? :(
This is as it came from the camera. Used Lightroom to create jpg and resize for posting.
Nikon D300, 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6, 105mm, f/5.6, 4sec, 200 iso
Ideally you should be using a lens longer than 105mm – I recently took a photograph of the moon with a 200mm lens with a 2x extender and still felt that it wasn’t close enough to appreciate.
From what I can see it appears that your exposure is not correct. It is possible that the camera has been fooled by the dark sky and therefore the moon is overexposed. I used my cameras manual mode using the lcd screen to judge correct exposure – not relying on the cameras meter. From what I can remember some of the settings that I started off with was around 1/200th sec, F/8 at ISO 400…. If this isn’t correct it should give you a good place to start from…
Ideally you should have the camera on a tripod and be using your mirror lock up function – to ensure that camera shake does not ruin the photo.
I am not 100% sure why there are two moons in the photo – maybe something to do with the image bouncing off the lens elements ?
Hope this helps….
Lawrence,
Thanx much. I’ll try again when the sky is clear again.
I did use a tripod but forgot about MLU.
Since you didn’t mention a formula, I’ll just shorten the exposure time until something good happens. :)
Since the 18-105mm is one of Nikon’s least expensive consumer lenses, maybe the blue moon is flare?
I think I can borrow a tele-extender.
Moon = green cheese, therefore good image = catching the man in the moon eating same. :wink: :wink:
more news when it’s fit to print,
Ted,
I am not aware of a formula as such to work out the correct exposure – but if you use the settings that I mentioned it should get you somewhere pretty close.
Best of luck…
I’m not really sure what the flare is, did you have a filter on the front of the lens?
For the correct exposure you have to remember that the light on the moon is essentially sunlight so you need to expose correctly. I usually use f8 and a shutter speed of 1/125th of a second and go from there. I wrote a little blog post on it here – http://damiansynnott.blogspot.com/2011/01/shoot-for-moon.html” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes, I have a clear protection filter.
Tonight the moon is obscured at my house but next time it’s right I’ll take off the filter and see if that helps.
A friend also suggested that I’m getting light through the viewfinder. Oops, I mostly forget to use the cover after framing and focusing.
And dumb old me, I was thinking it’s night = long exposure. But you’re right the only thing I’m interested in is super bright.
thanx,
hey, from my expericnce the formula for a full moon is 1 sec 100iso f16. if the sky is clear. however the moons size is an optical illusion created by atmosphere. the best time to shoot is moonrise. you can get the time in any alanamac. shoot just after sunset. this is when the moon will be maginified to its largest by the athmosphere. stew.
Steward et al. : 1s at f16???
– No wonder you guys all get white disks only….. :)On a clear night the moon ITSELF is actually only 1 stop lower than outdoors light on a sunny day. I haven’t looked at Damian’s blog, but I’m sure he’s doing a similar thing.
So irrespective of focal length start with 1/125 f11 at 100ASA or the quivalent. If your camera stars at 200ASA then use 1/250 f11 (= 1/500f8 etc.).
…yes, leave that filter off.One of my first good moon shots was (on Kodachrome (!)) with a 2x teleconverter, stacked on a 3xteleconverter, stacked in turn on a 300mm f5.6 after-market lens I think it was (=1800mm and f32) ±1/15s, “wide open”, tripod. You could see every crater….but it still didn’t completely fill he frame…
I should scan that slide one day.WOW Even more great suggestions. So now I have some where to begin.
If I fix all the things I did wrong that first time, I might get something that looks more like the moon. Better focus, better exposure, etc will come when I at least get more than a white disk with a blue one along side. :)
thanx again,
The Fine Print wrote:
Steward et al. : 1s at f16???
– No wonder you guys all get white disks only….. :)On a clear night the moon ITSELF is actually only 1 stop lower than outdoors light on a sunny day. I haven’t looked at Damian’s blog, but I’m sure he’s doing a similar thing.
So irrespective of focal length start with 1/125 f11 at 100ASA or the quivalent. If your camera stars at 200ASA then use 1/250 f11 (= 1/500f8 etc.).
…yes, leave that filter off.One of my first good moon shots was (on Kodachrome (!)) with a 2x teleconverter, stacked on a 3xteleconverter, stacked in turn on a 300mm f5.6 after-market lens I think it was (=1800mm and f32) ±1/15s, “wide open”, tripod. You could see every crater….but it still didn’t completely fill he frame…
I should scan that slide one day.hey sorry about that your absolutely right, i was being careless on my android phone and still havnt got he hang of typing on it with this predictive text thing…..(still working on that blank disc:))
what i meant to type was 1/125th second F16 100iso…which is still wrong.
i personally use this calculator, find it excellent for any night photography or difficult exposure….(+/- a stop) but since there is no established base expsoure for night i tend to bracket anyway.
take a look and tell me what you think. http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
also fred parker has a great calculator as well.
stew
I’ve got a really bad moon shot too-
Taken in late afternoon, still some colour in the sky.
This one is a 100% crop from the full frame-Exposure was 1/20th at f/11 (or f/8, not really sure, can’t remember) (-1.3ev, dunno if that’s taken off the shutter speed…) 200 iso.
Ignore the exif-Lens was a 36″ (915mm) f/6.3 Air Ministry Reconnaissance lens, from a WWII Spitfire, or Hurricane, mounted on a D200.
Or rather, the D200 was mounted to it-
It could have been better, but my remote cable gave up on me, and I had to use the self timer-
the mirror slap definitely had an effect-I’d be tempted to use a larger aperture rather than a smaller one, because diffraction will have an effect too-
Plus, it’ll give a shorter exposure time, and at this magnification, you can actually see the moon transit the frame.A couple of things that might be of interest-
if you want to know roughly how large your image of the moon will be, divide your focal length by 100-
so a 200mm lens will produce an image 2mm across- for example.Also, that range of mountains to the left is the Caucuses- 450km long, with a peak 6km high.
Pete the Bloke, for those who go back far enough, suggested that a series of pictures could be made of the different stages-
then stitched together to give a highly modeled representation- not a bad idea-I think shooting the full moon makes the light too frontal, and doesn’t accentuate the modeling of the features.
There was a fabulous moon shot posted here a few years ago-
taken on a telescope, using a special liquid cooled sensor-
but I can’t find it…Hope you don’t mind me putting this here, but it kinda suits the thread title-
Pictures of the lens that took it are on flickr-http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph-jb7/sets/72157625401037924/with/5397092322/
Moonshot Detail jb77690 by joseph – jb7, on FlickrOh dear If that’s a bad moon shot, I’m in more trouble than I thought.
I have a good camera, two inexpensive zooms and a 35mm prime. By giving me good examples, you all have taught me to ignore any more equipment and concentrate on finding what I really need. What I will actually use.
There are so many kinds of photography to keep me interested and amused. I’ve little chance of learning even part of it all. = good thing
thanx again,
a photographer makes his camera, a camera dosnt make the photogrpaher….but it can help:) keep trying, im sure you will well be up to the best of standards soon:)
stew
Stew,
That’s my point exactly. I was given a Nikon D300, lens, tripod, etc, etc.
But they don’t make photos. That’s up to me.
I hope I’m up to your optimism about getting up to speed. With some luck the years spent in museums and gallerys will help.
thanx for the encouragement,
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
